‘Amazing Spider-Man 2′ Begins Production; May Not Be Shooting on Digital [Update]

Sony’s decision to reboot its Spider-Man movie franchise remains contentious, so it’s not surprising that director Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man failed to win over many fans of Sam Raimi’s take on the character. However, at the end of the day, Webb overcame a lack of experience in the big-budget department to deliver a Spidey flick that satisfied more than it disappointed (and took in over $752 million in the process).

Back in 2012, there was a period of time when contractual obligations threatened to prevent Webb from returning for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (note: that is not the official title). A deal was eventually struck, followed by months of additional casting and confirmation of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone reprising their roles in the sequel – along with reports on a less-expected cast member coming back – culminating with the beginning of principal photography this week.

Webb took to Twitter to confirm production starting on the next Amazing Spider-Man installment, while also revealing the surprise news that part of the movie (if not the entire thing) will be shot on 35 mm, as opposed to the digital RED Epic 3D cameras used on its predecessor. The director did voice complaints about using the bulky 3D equipment – at an Amazing Spider-Man 3D preview last year – so it’s possible Webb convinced studio heads to allow shooting on old-fashioned celluloid and then post-convert to 3D instead.

UPDATE: Sony has further announced the start of production on the film with the following press release:

Columbia Pictures announced today that filming has begun on The Amazing Spider-Man™ 2 in New York. The film is the first in the history of the franchise that will be filmed entirely in New York City and New York State.

In The Amazing Spider-Man™ 2, for Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), life is busy – between taking out the bad guys as Spider-Man and spending time with the person he loves, Gwen (Emma Stone), high school graduation can’t come quickly enough. Peter hasn’t forgotten about the promise he made to Gwen’s father to protect her by staying away – but that’s a promise he just can’t keep. Things will change for Peter when a new villain, Electro (Jamie Foxx), emerges, an old friend, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), returns, and Peter uncovers new clues about his past.

The film is directed by Marc Webb from a screenplay by Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci & Jeff Pinkner, with a previous draft by James Vanderbilt, and based on the Marvel Comic Book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach are the producers.

That decision makes sense from a business perspective, since post-converting to 3D ought to be cheaper than filming it proper for the stereoscopic format (hence, Marvel is releasing all Phase II installments in post-converted 3D). It also means Webb can take 3D into account while shooting, which gives the Spider-Man sequel advantage over other impending blockbusters with 3D incorporated after the fact (see: Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim).

Webb made effective use of 3D at certain times in Amazing Spider-Man, but there were also numerous instances that felt too conventional in their construction (see: the crane-swinging sequence in the third act). In other words, this doesn’t seem like a huge loss, seeing how it frees up the director to be more expressive with the cinematography than 3D cameras allow. Not to mention: now you can skimp on paying the 3D surcharge and still feel like you’re getting the complete experience.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 (rumored to be called The Spectacular Spider-Man) is also shaping up well in front of the camera, with Garfield returning as Peter Parker and Stone back as Gwen Stacy. Joining the real-life couple are up-and-comers Dane DeHaan (Chronicle), Shailene Woodley (The Descendants) and Felicity Jones (Like Crazy) – playing teen Harry Osborn, Mary Jane Watson and a mystery character (for the time being, that is). Meanwhile, Oscar-nominee Paul Giamatti is Rhino and Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx is portraying a different version of Electro than some comic books readers might’ve expected.

That’s to say: the pieces are in place for Webb to deliver the Spider-Man movie he wanted to make the first time around, with more creative control and a non-origins story co-scripted by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (Star Trek Into Darkness). Couple all that with Webb’s newfound experience from working on Amazing Spider-Man, and we anticipate a noticeable uptick in overall quality on this particular superhero sequel.

75 Comments

Post a Comment

Want to change your avatar?Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Rules: No profanity or personal attacks. Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

AmazingFantasy#15 2 years ago

To be honest, i really dont care whether or not its filmed in 3D.. As long as the movie is good and well written, im happy. I actually miss the old days when the only movies that came out in 3D where the ‘omfg that sh*t looks crazy’ types of movies

I third that. 3D is overrated and it’s run its course, because I don’t think anybody cares. Dredd and Life of Pi had great 3D though and I wouldn’t say the entire concept of 3-Dimension should be vanquished because it did help tell the story in Life of Pi.

Omg so they did decide on Woodley for MJ Watson? I’ve never really seen any of her work so I hope she does a great job, along with all of the newcomers. I’m racking my brain trying to figure out who Felicity Jones would be portraying but this is exciting! I loved Amazing and I hope that Spectacular (which it should be called) is good as well. Giamatti as Rhino! *le gasp* AWESOME! And Foxx as Electro, should be interesting, I’m sure many hard core fans would be a bit upset but I say just give it a chance. It’s unconventional I know but hopefully they do it well enough where the hardcore fans won’t go against it too much.

Michael Duncan Clarke (RIP) was an inspired choice for The Kingpin! Jackson has been an awesome Nick Fury! It’s about time they started changing things around in the Comic world! Fishburn as Perry White? That’s gonna ROCK! That man can play anything from Yoda (the Matrix) to a backwoods southern sleazy cop! (Just Cause)

I don’t know, I never had a problem when they change the ethnicity of the individual as long as the actor makes the character believable and recognizable. I never base a comic book character on their ethnicity or anything, just the way they act and handle situations in the story. But I do understand where people are coming from when they don’t want Superman or Luke Cage to be Asian or something.

The Comic Books were written in a time, where black people were consider for the most part, third class citizens in the United States.

Comic Books were written in mind to sell to the demographic, young male Caucasians. As most newsstand would not accept a Black Super Hero. When Superman first appeared in 1938.

2 Years Prior was the Summer Olympics in Berlin, where Jesse Owens did something in front of perhaps the most racially lopsided country in the world. Germany and in Front of Adolph Hitler, Literally put on a display that both embrassed Hitler, but established that a Black Person was on par, if not Superior to other races. But, that did not change the minds of many about Black People.

Then in 1938 Same Year as Superman’s debut. Joe Louis destroyed, and I mean literally and figuratively destroyed Max Schmeling. Two Years, Two Black Heros. Long before Blacks were treated equally.

Now this is 2013, we can have a Black Electro, and we can have a White Luke Cage.

Race, Color or Sexual Orientation should be considered blasphemy. You Either Adapt and change your mindset, or you stand pat, and become extinct.

I am a big fan of Marvel and I like what they are doing. They are putting a fresh twist on the characters which needs to be done. I mean lets face it if you did comic book movies how the comic was orignally done it would be dated, old and boring.

TASM was a pretty solid reboot. I can see why some people don’t like it (I’m personally still not a fan of the costume and the origin done again after we just covered a whole Spider-Man trilogy), but it’s pretty good overall

+1
There are actually so many flaws to count Norman, far more noticeable disappointments to mention than what you pointed out. That was the worst superhero film of 2012. I never get it how most of the movie nerds and thoughtful critics here anyway find this movie ‘solid’!

Not getting it why you are saying i don’t need to go spewing off my hatred towards “movie nerds and thoughtful critics” when my hatred was just towards the movie but not the people who i addressed as such! I would agree with you though if you said TDKR was awful as a ‘Batman’ movie, It definitely had some major drawbacks, but i will not put it under TASM. Despite TDKRs flaws, i rather enjoyed it which i simply couldn’t while watching TASM. I would really love to debate about the flaws of TASM with you but assuming you as well as anyone with average intelligence watched that movie already know about those, i don’t need to.
Yes, it’s Marc Webb’s vision, neither mine, nor yours, maybe you like it, i don’t. It’s like what you said, “opinions are opinions”, & you don’t need to show bitterness towards someone who disliked it. When i said “movie nerds and thoughtful critics” i wasn’t referring to specially you but everyone out here who liked that movie, never think that was an insult.

“now you can skimp on paying the 3D surcharge and still feel like you’re getting the complete experience.”

Sure if marketing lets you.

“with more creative control”

Well we’ll see where that leads, likely into X-Men territory if they’re not careful.

Really though I’m more positive about a follow up story now that they’ve got the origin story out of the way. For me it was just too soon to tread that material again and I wasn’t going to pay twenty plus dollars to see it in a theater even if they did do it differently than Raimi’s version…

I think they should go with numbered sequels. If they use a different adjective for each one, eventually they will run out since all other good ones are taken(The Incredible Hulk, The Invincible Iron Man, the Uncanny X-Men, etc). I also think digital is the way to go since they would have to transfer the whole film into a computer anyway.

This film series isn’t going to go on forever.If six films(two trilogies) is the max they can use(while andrew garfield and emma stone defy age and continue to look 16:
Amazing(number 1)
spectacular
ultimate
superior
senstational
Webswinger.
To name a few.

The possibility that the sequel might be shot on film is more exciting to me that all the other news surrounding the project. Django Unchained looked beautiful, even if it was projected as a digital scan of the film print.

seen 3 films in 3D, Avatar (DUH!!) Clash of the Titans (the wife wanted to go) and Avengers.
Avatar’s 3D was immersive and awesome as we all know, Titan’s 3D was cr@p and (sorry Joss) didn’t really notice the 3D on Avengers.
Until EVERY film that uses 3D does so to create an immersive atmosphere and not just use it to chuck spears, piranha, breasts etc. at the audience then it will remain just a gimmick.
One question though, Cammeron spent 10years and vaultfulls of cash to develop the camera tech for Avatar, is everyone who FILMS in 3D (not post conversion) using his kit or are there various 3D cameras and systems out on the market?

Avatar, TF3, Hugo, Avengers, Life Of Pi and The Hobbit where the only movies where the 3D really stood out for me. There have been other movies where the 3D was good-ish, but with those it never felt like the 3D effect was adding anything to the viewing experience.
With all the above mentioned films, however, it felt like I was getting my money’s worth with the higher 3D ticket price.
I’d gladly watch any of those again in 3D… well, maybe not TF3

Tron Legacy is the only movie I have ever seen that was worth the extra few bucks to see in 3D. Every other movie just looked better in normal 2D. Avengers was okay in 3D, but I still liked it better 2D as well.

Yeah the post-conversion 3D in Avengers was lacklustre at best. Just another reason why I’m not a fan of post-conversions now and make a point to see them in 2D, especially when they cause delays to convert them (ahem, GI Joe, ahem).

I actually liked the 3D in TASM though – but after seeing amazing HFR 3D in The Hobbit, it makes 24fps 3D seem EXTRA choppy to me, so now I’m that much more hesitant to see a film in 3D in the cinema.

There were 3D camera systems out before Avatar (e.g. Journey to the Center of the Earth was shot in 3D).

A lot of what Cameron developed for Avatar was the tech to create a fully digital realistic looking world, and also to have the realtime camera to look around in that world while the actors were on fake sets and in mo-cap suits.

Also, the two films you mentioned that you didn’t enjoy in 3D were post-converted and not actually shot in 3D.

Wouldn’t it be pretty cool to name the movies “The Amazing Spider-man” “The Spectacular Spider-man” and the last in the trilogy would be named ” Ultimate Spider-man”. Just a thought. The reboot was good overall. Definitely looking forward with the sequel!

I liked the reboot, except for the fact that Peter kept performing in a manner that would clearly give away his supposed ‘secret identity’. ie. at the football field and the basketball court.
While it was great to see him get the upper hand over the jock, it was ..”really?? no one see’s how impossible what he just did is?? or how he’d have to be spiderman to do it???”

Not to be rude or anything…but the third one can’t be called Ultimate Spiderman because the Ultimate universe is seperate from the traditional giant Marvel universe. Its weird, how it’s setup like that.

This version of Spiderman seems to be taking more inspiration form the Ultimate line than the original. Would be cool if they did the death of Spiderman, not announce but have it come as a complete shock at the end of the film.
‘POTENTIAL SPOILER’
On the subject of the untold story I wonder if they will follow the ultimate comic book line where Parkers parents were killed in a plane explosion through because of something his father was doing and if remember rightly his father wasn’t killed but went into hiding.

The Amazing Spider-Man was meh. Not that the Raimi’s trilogy was perfect, because it wasn’t. Andrew Garfield is in no way suited to be Spider-Man. To me he feels like more of a marketing tactic than a creative decision, because he fits the “sexy nerd” obsession that everyone seems to have nowadays. Despite the problems that Raimi’s films had, Tobey Maquire was an excellent Spider-Man, far better than Andrew Garfield.

But besides all that, I was somewhat excited to see this sequel. UNTIL Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci were attached to write it. The same two guys that wrote Transformers, Cowboys and Aliens, and that god-awful TV show Fringe.

Toby Maguire fit the Peter Parker role a thousands times over! He truly captured the essence of being a nerdy guy who tries to juggle a love life, school, and being a superhero.

Andrew Garfield is just a pretty boy to lure in all those squealing, teen girls. My sister included. He just came across as trying to emulate Maguire’s performance, but not nearly as successful. Adding m-mumbles a-and st-stuttering every other line doesn’t make you a nerdy outcast.

I disagree! Garfield wasn’t trying to be like Maguire – he was playing a modern teenaager. Yes, Maguire was a nerdy outcast, but Garfield wasn’t going for that. Instead, he played a guy who is intelligentt; puts his genius to use;a loner; sticks up for the little guy BEFORE gaining spider powers; has trouble with women which makes him relateable; dickish. No way did Garfield act anything like Maguire, who IMO was the little guy that Garfield saved from Flash.

Garfield is a “pretty boy”, yes. But who said that Peter had to be an unattractive guy? Plus, he was actually believable as a boy with spider DNA, with the way he moves around, and the long lanky arms and legs.

Point is, there is more than one interpretation of Peter Parker. Whichever one you prefer is your personal preference. But I would have to go with Garfield because he’s a modern day version of Peter and less pathetic. With that being said, he even shows the qualities of a hero before he gained spider powers which makes him a little more interesting than crybaby, dancing Maguire

I love the red cameras with the fact that they aren’t 3d cameras, but they can be made into by two cameras facing into a mirror and a bunch of wires. I think film is a huge waste of money because in the end you have to convert it to digital to edit it. I also love the clarity of digital. I don’t give a poop about 3D, it’s worthless it takes the whole point of the story and throws it down the trash. Plus film cameras are huge and the red is as big as a standard DSLR. So screw the whole “more freedom with cinematography” junk. But I do seriously respect Marc Webb, so we’ll see.

I’ve heard some people comment that we’ve spent 100 years trying to get the wires disconnected from the camera. We finally succeeded with film cameras (load the film, slap on a battery), then digital came in. Not everyone does a digital intermediate, but even if you do, there is still a difference in the look and technical qualities of the picture with film.